Menu



error This forum is not active, and new posts may not be made in it.
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
11/17/2012 1:53:59 PM

Hello friends, does this surprise any of us that have not been blinded by the Pied Piper occupying the WH? Will he ever be brought to justice? Does anyone understand how any patriotic American could have ever voted for him, especially after the previous four years? Mind boggling isn't it?

Retired Lt. Col.: My Sources Say Obama Was in the Room Watching Benghazi Attack Happen

Posted on October 28, 2012 by Madeleine Morgenstern

Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer said Saturday he has sources saying President Barack Obama was in the room at the White House watching the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya unfold.

Two unarmed U.S. drones were dispatched to the consulate and recorded the final hours of the attack, which killed U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.

“This was in the middle of the business day in Washington, so everybody at the White House, CIA, Pentagon, everybody was watching this go down,” Shaffer said on Fox News’ “Justice with Judge Jeanine.” “According to my sources, yes, [Obama] was one of those in the White House Situation Room in real-time watching this.”

Shaffer served as a senior operations officer for the Defense Intelligence Agency in Afghanistan in 2003 and wrote a book critical of the policies there. The U.S. government purchased the entire print run for $47,000 in an attempt at censorship just before its 2010 publication, claiming it contained classified material.

Shaffer said the question now is what precisely Obama did or didn’t do in the moments he saw the attack unfolding. The CIA reportedly made three urgent requests for military backup that were each denied.

“He, only he, could issue a directive to Secretary of Defense Panetta to do something. That’s the only place it could be done,” Shaffer said.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said last week the military did not intervene because they did not have enough information about what was happening on the ground.

Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, said the military could have had jets in the air within 20 minutes and forces on the ground within two hours.

“The issue is always political with the White House, but the secretary of defense gives the order, has to be approved by the White House, they wouldn’t pull the trigger, and it’s disgraceful,” Hunt said. “We’ve got guys dead.”

+0
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
11/17/2012 8:18:54 PM

Hi Peter and friends. You know there are going to be a bunch of whinning cry babies when they finally realize what they did when they voted Obama back into office and his Obamacare starts taking full effect. I think there are going to be some surprised people but then again maybe not.

Check Out All The New Taxes You're Going To Pay To Pay For Obamacare...

Henry Blodget Nov. 17, 2012
Now that Barack Obama has been reelected, Obamacare will become reality.

This means that a lot more people in the United States will have health insurance.

If the program works as it is supposed to, it also means that the growth of healthcare spending overall will eventually slow.

Both of those are good.

But, in the near term, Obamacare also means a lot of people will be paying more taxes and higher insurance premiums.

(You didn't think Obamacare was free, did you?)

Here are some of the new taxes you're going to have to pay to pay for Obamacare:

  • A 3.8% surtax on "investment income" when your adjusted gross income is more than $200,000 ($250,000 for joint-filers). What is "investment income?" Dividends, interest, rent, capital gains, annuities, house sales, partnerships, etc. Thanks to the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, taxes on dividends will rise rise from 15% to a shocking 43.8% on January 1st, unless Congress cuts a deal with respect to the fiscal cliff. (WSJ)
  • A 0.9% surtax on Medicare taxes for those making $200,000 or more ($250,000 joint). You already pay Medicare tax of 1.45%, and your employer pays another 1.45% for you (unless you're self-employed, in which case you pay the whole 2.9% yourself). Next year, your Medicare bill will be 2.35%. (WSJ)
  • Flexible Spending Account contributions will be capped at $2,500. Currently, there is no tax-related limit on how much you can set aside pre-tax to pay for medical expenses. Next year, there will be. If you have been socking away, say, $10,000 in your FSA to pay medical bills, you'll have to cut that to $2,500. (ATR.org)
  • The itemized-deduction hurdle for medical expenses is going up to 10% of adjusted gross income. Right now, any medical expenses over 7.5% of AGI are deductible. Next year, that hurdle will be 10%. (ATR.org)
  • The penalty on non-medical withdrawals from Healthcare Savings Accounts is now 20% instead of 10%. That's twice the penalty that applies to annuities, IRAs, and other tax-free vehicles. (ATR.org)
  • A tax of 10% on indoor tanning services. This has been in place for two years, since the summer of 2010. (ATR.org)
  • A 40% tax on "Cadillac Health Care Plans" starting in 2018.Those whose employers pay for all or most of comprehensive healthcare plans (costing $10,200 for an individual or $27,500 for families) will have to pay a 40% tax on the amount their employer pays. The 2018 start date is said to have been a gift to unions, which often have comprehensive plans. (ATR.org)
  • A"Medicine Cabinet Tax" that eliminates the ability to pay for over-the-counter medicines from a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account. This started in January 2011. (ATR.org)
  • A "penalty" tax for those who don't buy health insurance. This will phase in from 2014-2016. It will range from $695 per person to about $4,700 per person, depending on your income. (More details here.)
  • A tax on medical devices costing more than $100. Starting in 2013, medical device manufacturers will have to pay a 2.3% excise tax on medical equipment. This is expected to raise the cost of medical procedures. (Breitbart.com)

So those are some of the new taxes you'll be paying that will help pay for Obamacare.

Any big ones I've missed?

Note that these taxes are both "progressive" (aimed at rich people) and "regressive" (aimed at the middle class and poor people). The big ones--the 3.8% investment income hike and the Medicare tax increase--only hit you if you're making more than $200,000 a year. The rest hit you no matter how much you're making.

SEE ALSO:
Here's How Much The Obamacare Penalty Tax Will Cost You...
Here's Who Doesn't Have To Buy Health Insurance Or Pay Penalties Under Obamacare

+0
Helen Elias

801
1370 Posts
1370
Invite Me as a Friend
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
11/17/2012 9:39:22 PM

O votes for Romney??

Helen

OneNewsNow article (see link below)

Precincts with 0 votes for Romney suggest voter fraud

Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com)
Friday, November 16, 2012

A pro-family activist believes that voter fraud may have indeed taken place in large cities like Cleveland and Philadelphia and could have impacted the election.
In the wake of the 2012 presidential race, voting records from the Cuyahoga County Ohio board of elections have revealed that Barack Obama received more than 99 percent of the vote in more than 100 precincts in that county on Election Day. In fact, there were several Cleveland precincts where Mitt Romney received exactly zero votes.

Robert Knight is a senior fellow and executive director at theAmerican Civil Rights Union. He says there were similar anomalies in Philadelphia.

Knight, Robert (ACRU)"According the Philadelphia Enquirer, in 59 different voting precincts there wasn't a single vote cast for Mitt Romney," he tells OneNewsNow. "It was 99.9 percent for Barack Obama. That just doesn't even happen in communist countries. And the same thing happened, apparently, in Cuyahoga County, which is Cleveland, Ohio."

Knight says, judging by the thin margin Obama carried in battleground states, these vote totals should give pause.

"Barack Obama didn't carry any of them by more than two or three percent, and in some cases around one percent -- so a little bit of vote fraud in the cities may have made the difference," he suggests.

There have also been reports of individuals attempting to vote for Romney, but the voting machines kept recording their votes for Obama.

http://onenewsnow.com//politics-govt/2012/11/16/precincts-with-0-votes-for-romney-suggest-voter-fraud

Spend $4 and get back $10 every time you spend. Contact me (Helen) at this email »»» zhebee@yahoo.com
+0
Helen Elias

801
1370 Posts
1370
Invite Me as a Friend
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
11/19/2012 12:38:16 PM
[quote]

Hello

Evelyn gave such glowing reports about the Canada Free Press, I decided to subscribe for a while myself.

That's how I found this interesting article which explains what a state needs to do to secede from the USA country.

I thought you might find this interesting.

Helen

States Don’t Need To Petition To Leave The Union

You might have heard stories this past week about states that are petitioning the President for permission to secede from The Union. The Union, being The United States of America. But this actually is just sloppy reporting by the main stream media.

First of all, what are being filed are petitions on the White House’s website by groups of citizens. In order for the President to review them, or do whatever it is he does with them, they have to get a certain number of signatories. These are not, I repeat, NOT, petitions by the actual States themselves. Anyone reporting otherwise is simply wrong.

Second of all, it is a pointless exercise because States do not need to petition the federal government, much less the messiah, to secede. They simply say, “We’re seceding.” Then they secede.

See, the Constitution spells out the powers of our federal government. It also clearly states that, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That would be in Amendment Ten.

So, look through the Constitution and see if you can find any mention of the federal government having the power to keep States from leaving the Union. No? Well, that means the power is reserved by the States. Not even Obama, sitting upon his throne in the White House, has anything to say about it.

Now, maybe you are scratching your head. Because, perhaps you have been taught that the Civil War settled, once and for all, the issue of whether or not States could secede from The Union. The southern states tried it. The north attacked and said, “Oh, no you don’t! Once in The Union, always in The Union!”

Right of states to secede

Sadly, that is about the extent of most people’s understanding of events. What the Civil War was actually fought over was not the right of states to secede, but whether or not states had a right to secede in order to deny persons within their borders (who were previously subject to U.S. jurisdiction) their rights. That would be black people, if I have to spell it out for you more clearly.

See, the real story behind the Civil War is that the South did not like the growing anti-slavery sentiment in the North. They felt that with Lincoln’s election they would be forced to free their slaves and treat them as equals. I know, perish the thought! So, several States at the time had this really “great” idea which went along the lines of, “Hey, if we just leave The Union, we can continue to treat blacks like property.”

I know that people come up with all sorts of excuses as to how the Civil War was not about slavery. But, all one has to do is look at the actual declarations of secession from several of the States speaking on the issue. Georgia’s mentions slavery as a reason for seceding more than thirty times. Mississippi’s declaration mentions slavery seven times. South Carolina’s states complaints about slavery being threatened over a dozen times. Texas declares slavery as a cause over twenty times.

Civil War was not about slavery

So please, spare us all the lies about how the Civil War was not about slavery. Understanding this, what the Civil War actually settled was the issue about whether or not States could secede from The Union for the expressed purpose of oppressing persons within their borders and denying these people their inalienable rights. Nothing more.

It would be like Massachusetts saying, “You know, we really don’t like the Jews. We want to eliminate them. But because U.S. law prevents us from doing so, we’re going to secede from The Union. Then we’re going to round up all the Jews and burn them in ovens.”

This would be something, I would hope, that our federal government would immediately act to stop. But, then again, liberals are in charge in Washington ... and we all know their history with not liking the Jews.

However, if a State simply says, “Hey, you know what? We don’t like the way The Union is headed. We’re going to leave,” that is perfectly legal. There is nothing the federal government can do about it.

Sorry.

End of article

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/51147?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=605479db51-Call_to_Champions&utm_medium=email


Spend $4 and get back $10 every time you spend. Contact me (Helen) at this email »»» zhebee@yahoo.com
+0
Helen Elias

801
1370 Posts
1370
Invite Me as a Friend
RE: The President That Hates His Country By Joan Swirsky
11/19/2012 11:01:02 PM

Oops! I think I put this in the wrong forum but I think that now that I have it here, I'll leave it here because it is important that people know what is going on with Israel and the Palestinians.

Helen

Hamas Sacrifices Civilians as a Military Tactic

Image Below Headline Start
Monday 19, 2012 12:43 PM
By Alan Dershowitz
As rockets continue to fall in Israel and Gaza, it is important to understand Hamas’s tactic and how the international community and the media are

encouraging it.

Hamas’s tactic is as simple as it is criminal and brutal. Its leaders know that by repeatedly firing rockets at Israeli civilian areas, they will give Israel no choice but to respond. Israel’s response will target the rockets and those sending them. In order to maximize their own civilian casualties, and thereby earn the sympathy of the international community and media, Hamas leaders deliberately fire their rockets from densely populated civilian areas. The Hamas fighters hide in underground bunkers but Hamas refuses to provide any shelter for its own civilians, who they use as “human shields.”

This unlawful tactic presents Israel with a tragic choice: simply allow Hamas rockets to continue to target Israeli cities and towns; or respond to the rockets, with inevitable civilian casualties among the Palestinian “human shields.”

Every democracy would choose the latter option if presented with a similar choice. Although Israel goes to great efforts to reduce civilian casualties, the Hamas tactic is designed to maximize them. The international community and the media must understand this and begin to blame Hamas, rather than Israel, for the Palestinian civilians who are killed by Israeli rockets but whose deaths are clearly part of the Hamas tactic.


Every reasonable commentator has agreed with President Obama that Hamas started this battle by firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every reasonable commentator also agrees with President Obama that Israel has the right to defend its citizens. But many commentators fault Israel for causing Palestinian civilian casualties. But what is Israel’s option, other than to simply allow rockets to be aimed at its own women and children?

As President Obama observed when he went to Sderot as a candidate:

“The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if…somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Israel should continue to make every effort to reduce civilian casualties, both because that is the humane thing to do and because it serves their interests. But so long as Hamas continues to fire rockets from densely populated civilian areas, rather than from the many open areas outside of Gaza City, this cynical tactic—which constitutes a double war crime—will guarantee that some Palestinian women and children will be killed. And the Hamas leadership prepares for this gruesome certainty by arranging for the dead babies to be paraded in front of the international media. In one such case, the Palestinian radicals posted a video of a dead baby who turned out to have been killed in Syria by the Assad government, and in another case, they displayed the body of a baby who had been killed by a Hamas rocket that misfired, falsely claiming that it had been the victim of an Israeli rocket.

As Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan has said, the Israeli Army does “more to safeguard civilians than any army in the history of warfare.” This includes dropping leaflets, making phone calls and providing other warnings to civilian residents of Gaza City. But Hamas refuses to provide shelter for its civilians, deliberately exposing them to the risks associated with warfare, while it shelters its own fighters in underground bunkers.

The Hamas tactic is also designed to prevent Israel from making peace with the Palestinian Authority. Even Israeli doves are concerned that if Israel ends its occupation of the West Bank, Hamas may take over that territory, as it took over Gaza shortly after Israel ended its occupation of that area. The West Bank is much closer to Israel’s major population centers than Gaza. If Hamas were to fire rockets from the West Bank at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel would then have to respond militarily, as it has in Gaza. Once again, civilians would be killed, thus provoking international outcry against Israel.

What we are seeing in Gaza today is a replay of what happened in 2008 and 2009, when Israel went into Gaza to stop the rocket fire. The result was the Goldstone Report, which put the blame squarely on Israel. This benighted report — condemned by most thoughtful people, and eventually even critiqued by Goldstone himself — has encouraged Hamas to go back to the tactic that resulted in international condemnation of Israel. This tactic will persist as long as the international community and the media persist in blaming Israel for civilian deaths caused by a deliberate Hamas tactic.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hamas-human-shields-israel/2012/11/19/id/464723?s=al&promo_code=10D10-1#ixzz2Ci5RWgVr

Spend $4 and get back $10 every time you spend. Contact me (Helen) at this email »»» zhebee@yahoo.com
+0


facebook
Like us on Facebook!